quote:<HR>Originally posted by brianfie:
I wonder if anyone can attempt an answer to a couple of questions.

Is taking a walk break more effective, in tems of training effect, than slowing down and keeping on running?

Can walk-running be though of as a way to keep average HR down on a run - like MAFF.

What are the fastest times anyone has walked-raun a marathon with something like a 9/1 ratio.

I feel I would hate walk/running. I feel I am cultivating a steady-seady state zone to run in and stopping would be terribly disruptive. Still I would like to see an explanation for its effectiveness.

-b<HR>

Brian,

I don't know the answer but have always assumed it was for individuals that have a poor aerobic base. Running at just about any speed takes their HR up past the point that they could ever support for the duration of a marathon. Walking breaks are the only way to keep the avg reasonable. The only other advantage I've ever considered is again for newer runners that don't have the connective tissue strength necessary to run for 4 hours straight. Theoretically the walk breaks give the connective tissues a rest, allowing them to carry the runner to the finish.

Nothing scientific behind these observations, purely one opinion.

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

"Pain is temporary. Regret hurts forever."
URL=http://www.analytical-training.blogspot.com

I use to be a Gallowing basher. Here me out-

Their has been some dicussion lately about the long run and "how long" it should be in terms of time. For me I always put off training for the marathon till I could run for 20 miles in 3 hours. So it took a few years of shorter distances with long runs of 2 hours on a regular baises. I guess I assumed 3 hours would be possible.

Now that I'm training for my first marathon and have done nemerous long runs of 2.5 hours(17ish miles) and 3 runs of 3 hours(21ish miles). The 2.5 hour runs are pretty comfortable but the 3 hour runs leave me wiped and needed too long recovery. They subtract from the next weeks quality and quanity. I even get major shin splints from these runs.

Someone put it into perspective for me like this. An elite runner takes about 10000 steps per hour(180x60=10800). I myself stride at 180 stept per minute(as do most) or 10800 steps per hour. So in an hour run an elite runner and myself both take on the same impact stress. The difference is the elite runner has a longer stride/power output etc.. If you veiw any elites schedules you will see they rarley run longer than 2 hours!! Even Ryal Hall's long run was 2 hours 15 mins! So what makes me, an average Joe think I can withstand more impact stress than that of a professional? Kinda sounds absurd huh?

But their is a problem! For the Elite runner doing a long run of 2-2.5 hours they are running at or very close to the time it will take them to finish the race. For myself planning to finish a marathon in 3:25, if I run for 2.5 hours that still leaves me with 55 mins that I won't cover in training. One method is to get this time on your feet without the risk of injury through excessive impact stress. I think Maffetone(was it?) suggested doing something like, (using myself for example) walk for 30 mins than run for 2.5 hours then walk another 25 mins. This way I get the whole 3.25 hours on my feet without the negative effects of the "killer long run".

Thats not at all what Galloway advocates but just something to consider. After learning from my current training I'm going to try that out.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by brianfie:
Is taking a walk break more effective, in tems of training effect, than slowing down and keeping on running? <HR>

What do you mean by "training effect"? Sometimes walk breaks are more energy efficient than running if on big hills (maybe not ones you'd find in typical road race). They allow people to keep moving when they don't have the strength to get up the hill efficiently or when the running muscles tire. Under some conditions it's not a matter of slowing down and continuing to run, it's a matter of walking and continuing to move forward rather than stopping for the day. If "training effect" is logging time on legs, then, yes, walk breaks can be very effective.

If you went out too fast and can't maintain your pace, then, well, slow down to what pace you should have been running. (In some cases, this might be where people are Gallowalking, but I think there's far more cases of people using it for biomechanical reasons. But I don't have any first hand knowledge of how Gallowalkers are actually using it. Haven't seen any in any of my races. People walk in my races but for terrain, usually.)

If you're doing intervals or hill repeats or something along those lines, some people might need to walk to recover to maintain the quality part of the workout. Run / walk is a type of interval (or fartlek if unstructured).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by brianfie:
Can walk-running be though of as a way to keep average HR down on a run - like MAFF.<HR>

I think so. Actually, I think with Maff you're supposed to stay under that HR completely, not just the average. (Because I'm older, my Maff is lower than the lowest HR recommended for minimal cardio benefits. So the only time I'm in range is if I'm walking. I don't use Maff training but did look at it and tried it unsuccessfully for a bit so don't take my word for it.)

quote:<HR>Originally posted by brianfie:
What are the fastest times anyone has walked-raun a marathon with something like a 9/1 ratio.<HR>

You might ask on the Galloway forum. I noticed that some people asked for names of people that actually improved the way he said (somewhere around 2:30 getting faster, iirc, and a number that broke 3 after not being able to break 3 hrs with straight running) - but he never responded. Might be confidential info.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by brianfie:
I feel I would hate walk/running. I feel I am cultivating a steady-seady state zone to run in and stopping would be terribly disruptive. Still I would like to see an explanation for its effectiveness.<HR>

If you're happy running straight through and can achieve all your goals that way, then have at it.

Look at my earlier post (one with Osler references). Also, running uses muscles in a certain way; walking uses them differently. Your running muscles rest while your walking and vice versa.

Keep in mind that some of the fastest walkers can walk through the marathon distance in less than 3:10.
http://walking.about.com/od/racewalking/a/rwrecords.htm[/URL" target="_blank">

So if you're looking at trying to increase your speed in a marathon, you need to consider what your running pace is as well as your walking pace - and train for both running and walking and the transition and find the right ratio for you. Some people run much faster than they walk and don't want to consider the extra hassle of dealing with both. That's fine.

But in ultras and trail races, many of the fast runners are also fast walkers and can just walk right on by some runners. That's very demoralizing to the run-only folks to have someone walk by them.

For other people, walk breaks allow them to continue run / walking for many hours. For those people that like to spend lots of time in the mountains, that's great that they can get lots of time on their feet. For people that just want to do their workout and get on with the rest of their life, just run and do it.

The people that do the run / walk seriously in ultras have looked at the science behind it, but I don't have the primary references. Look at your journey runners - the ones that run the AT, PCT, etc.

Consider that everyone has a point where they can go farther (and sometimes faster) by including walk breaks. For some, it might be 100 miles up and down a bunch of montains; for others it might be 1 mile on flat terrain while they're starting. It just depends on your state of training and your goals as to what works for you.

http://This message has been edited by AKTrail (edited Sep-06-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by AKTrail:
Consider that everyone has a point where they can go farther (and sometimes faster) by including walk breaks. For some, it might be 100 miles up and down a bunch of montains; for others it might be 1 mile on flat terrain while they're starting. It just depends on your state of training and your goals as to what works for you.<HR>

This is precisely the point. I used the run/walk technique a few years ago in several marathons. My training base was such that incorporating regular walk breaks allowed me to extend the distance I could complete. Today, I no longer use walk breaks, but my training base is greater. If I was to tackle a 50 miler, however, you better believe that I would use regular walk breaks from the beginning.

I think the primary difficulty that most of Galloway's detractors have is the claim that incorporating regular walk breaks can result in a faster time for everyone ... not just those with a minimal training base.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by qwestman:
Tone of your post? There is no tone. It is a written response that doesn't make noise. the tone you are referring to is the theoretical tone your brain is assuming as you are reading the post. There is no audible tone coming out of a written reply.

<HR>

From webster's "style or manner of expression in speaking or writing"

As a professional corporate and grant writer for the past 12 years, I wish to briefly address the side issue of tone in writing. So, let me just say THIS about THAT . . .

That is a playful "tone," but only to those old enough to remember where that phrase comes from, right? There is absolutely tone in writing otherwise there would be no point in using it in communication at all. BUT, the problem is that some tones can come off unintended, especially in email and on forums like this. What may feel direct and honest to the writer may seem insulting and rude to the reader, and vice versa. What may seem witty and playfully funny to the writer comes across as sharply sarcastic and hurtful to the reader, and vice versa, etc. I try to remember this when I write online and when I read as well. Sometimes, though, even for me, it's hard.

As the Russian linguist, Valentin Voloshinov once pointed out so accurately, "A word is a bridge between myself and another . . .but if one end of the bridge depends on me, then the other depends on my addressee."

Hope that helps soothe the issue a little.

Liebling



http://This message has been edited by liebling (edited Sep-07-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Long Run Nick:
I have coached a bunch of Newbies over the years and have found that those who trained run/walk and ran/walked marathons have run more marathons, had fewer injuries and appear to enjoy running a little more. Maybe most important--they become lifetime runners--not flashes in the pan.

Run/walk/sprint/jog/skip--who cares. In Physics I recall that a body in motion tends to stay in motion. I wish more folks would become bodies in motion--who cares how fast or how far? Thanks for letting me share. Nick<HR>

Thanks for sharing, Nick, esp. the number that become lifetime runners.

Your observations on the Galloway camp in 1977 are consistent with the run / walk getting about 2-3 sentences in his 1984 book, and one of those was mentioning getting the idea from Tom Osler who got it elsewhere and tested it.